Loading...
Item 4DCITY OF SOUTHLAKE MEMORANDUM (December 5, 2017) To: Shana Yelverton, City Manager From: Rob Cohen, Director of Public Works Itcnn 4D Subject: Consider an order setting a public hearing for February 6, 2018, to discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for roadway improvements Action Requested: Consider an order setting a public hearing for February 6, 2018, to discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for roadway improvements. Background Information: An impact fee is a charge on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development. Impact fees must meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests. First, there must be a reasonable connection between the "need" for additional facilities and new development. Second, it must be shown that the fee payer will "benefit" in some way from the fee. Third, calculation of the fee must be based on a proportionate "fair share" formula. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC) allows cities to charge impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway capital improvements. Southlake has charged water and wastewater impact fees since 1990 and roadway impact fees since 1996. One of the provisions of this chapter calls for periodic updates of the related studies adopting the impact fees. City staff has been working with Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare and update the impact fee report. A copy of the impact fee report is included with this memo for your review. A detailed discussion of the impact fee study findings will be discussed at the January 16, 2018 City Council meeting. One of the required provisions of this chapter of the Local Government Code calls for the City Council to set a date for a Item 4D public hearing to discuss the impact fee study a minimum of 30 days prior to the actual public hearing. This item sets the public hearing for February 6, 2018. This is a minor update to the roadway impact fees which adds SH 114 Westbound Frontage Road and ramps from Kirkwood Boulevard to Dove Road, Kirkwood and SH 114 u -turn lanes, a right -turn lane from Dove Road onto the future SH 114 Westbound Frontage Road and Dove Road improvements west of SH 114. Additionally, capacity related recommendations from the Soutlake Citywide Intersection Analysis were added to the Roadway Impact Fee CIP. Financial Considerations: Funding for the impact fee study and adoption process will come from the respective roadway impact fee funds. Strategic Link: The impact fee study update links with the City's strategy map relative to the focus area of performance management and service delivery by adhering to providing high quality services through sustainable business practice. Citizen Input/ Board Review: In accordance with Texas Local Government Code, the study will be reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (aka Planning and Zoning Commission) and written comments will be furnished to the City Council on the proposed impact fees five days before the day of public hearing. The impact fee study report will also be made available to the public after the notice referenced above appears in the paper. Legal Review: The ordinance will be reviewed by the City Attorney's office Alternatives: The City Council may establish the public hearing on February 6, 2018 or propose a different date. Supporting Documents: 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update including: A. Land Use Assumption Report B. Roadway Capital Improvements Plans Staff Recommendation: Approve an order setting a public hearing for February 6, 2018, to discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for roadway improvements Item 41) Staff Contact: Rob Cohen, Director of Public Works Kyle D. Hogue, P.E., Deputy Director/City Engineer Steven D. Anderson, P.E., CFM, Deputy City Engineer 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE J Prepared by: Kimley)))Horn Texas Registration Number 928 801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 950 Fort Worth, TX 76102 817.335.6511 November 2017 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2015 0612370]6 CITY OT SOUTHLAKE Kimley»>Horn Table of Contents Tableof Contents................................................................................................................................... i 2.1 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................1 2.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................3 2.3 Roadway Impact Fee Study Calculation Inputs...........................................................5 A. Land Use Assumptions...........................................................................................5 B. Land Use Assumptions Methodology......................................................................6 C. Roadway Impact Fee Study Service Areas..............................................................7 D. Land Use Assumptions Summary...........................................................................7 E. Capital Improvement Plan.....................................................................................10 2.4 Methodology For Roadway Impact Fees....................................................................15 A. Service Area.........................................................................................................15 B. Service Units.........................................................................................................15 C. Cost Per Service Unit............................................................................................17 D. Cost of the CIP.....................................................................................................17 1. Review of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Sheets.........................................18 2. Project Information...........................................................................................19 3. Construction Pay Items.....................................................................................20 4. Construction Component Allowances...............................................................21 5. Summary of Cost and Allowances.....................................................................21 E. Summary of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Cost..........................................................22 F. Service Unit Calculation.......................................................................................24 2.5 Impact Fee Calculation...............................................................................................29 A. Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Per Service Unit...............................29 B. Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit...............................................31 C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development....................................................33 2.6 Sample Calculations....................................................................................................37 2.7 Conclusion....................................................................................................................38 APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................39 A. Appendix A — Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B. Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply C. Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update i November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn List of Exhibits CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 2.1 Roadway Service Areas.....................................................................................................9 2.2 Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan — Service Area North ............................13 2.3 Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan — Service Area South .............................14 List of Tables 2.1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees..............................................................8 2.2 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area North ............. 11 2.3 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for Service Area South ...........11 2.4 Level of Use for Proposed Facilities.................................................................................16 2.5 Level of Use for Existing Facilities...................................................................................16 2.6 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections — Service Area North................................................................................................................................ 23 2.7 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections — Service Area South................................................................................................................................23 2.8 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations.....................................................................27 2.9 10 -Year Growth Projections...........................................................................28 2.10 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation...........................................29-31 2.11 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee.....................................................................32 2.12 Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table(LUVMET)..............................................35-36 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update ii November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn 2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 This study was performed to update the City of Southlake's Roadway Impact Fees. Transportation system analysis is an important tool for facilitating orderly growth of the transportation system and for providing adequate facilities that promote economic development in the City of Southlake. The implementation of an impact fee is a way to shift a portion of the burden of paying for new facilities onto new development. The City of Southlake was divided into two (2) service areas for the purposes of the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Southlake. Each service area is an individual study area. For each service area, the funds collected must be spent on projects identified in the Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for that specific service area. This report, 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update, adds the SH 114 Westbound Frontage Road and ramps from Kirkwood Boulevard to Dove Road, Kirkwood and SH 114 a -turn lanes, a right -turn lane from Dove Road onto the future SH 114 Westbound Frontage Road, and Dove road improvements west of SH 114. Additionally, capacity related recommendations from the Southlake Citywide Intersection Analysis were added to the Roadway Impact Fee CIP. No other changes were made from the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. Roadway improvements necessary to serve the 10 -year (2015-2025) needs were evaluated. Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the 10 -year requirements; however, Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of costs to serve the 10 -year planning period. For example, the projected recoverable cost to construct the infrastructure needed through 2025 by service area is: SERVICE AREA: North South COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 38,819,502 $ 22,122,375 WITH FINANCING 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update I November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 A portion of the remainder can be assessed as the planning window extends beyond 2025 and as the impact fees are updated in the future. As required by Chapter 395, this total cost is reduced by 50% to account for the credit of the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the Roadway Impact Fee CIP. The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows: "Service Unit means a standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years." Therefore, the City of Southlake defines a service unit as the number of vehicle -miles of travel during the afternoon peak -hour. For each type of development the City of Southlake utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) to determine the number of service units. Based on the City's 10 -year growth projections and the associated demand (consumption) in terms of vehicle -miles is as follows: SERVICE AREA: North South TOTAL VEHICLE -MILES OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS 24,758 23,203 Based on the additional service units and the recoverable capital improvements plans, the City may assess a maximum roadway impact fee per vehicle -mile ([Recoverable Cost of CIP*50%] / Total Growth) of: SERVICE AREA: North South MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT $ 784 $ 477 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn 2.2 INTRODUCTION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities must follow in order to create and implement impact fees. Senate Bill 243 (SB 243) amended Chapter 395 in September 2001, to define an impact fee as "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." Chapter 395 mandates that impact fees be reviewed and updated at least every five (5) years. Accordingly, the City of Southlake has developed its Land Use Assumptions and Roadway Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with which to update the City's Roadway Impact Fees. The City has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide professional transportation engineering services for the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update. This update incorporated several projects along SH 114 from Kirkwood Boulevard to Dove Road (N-11 and I-8 to I-10) and capacity related recommendations (I- 11 to I-17) from the Southlake Citywide Intersection Analysis into the Roadway Impact Fee CIP. No other changes were made from the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. This report includes details of the impact fee calculation methodology in accordance with Chapter 395, the applicable Land Use Assumptions, development of the CIP, and the refinement of the Land Use Equivalency Table. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 3 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 91 This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee: the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Information from these two components is used extensively in the remainder of the report. This report consists of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact fees. This discussion - Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees and Impact Fee Calculation addresses each of the components of the computation and modifications required for the study. The components include: • Service Areas; • Service Units; • Cost Per Service Unit; • Cost of the CIP; • Service Unit Calculation; • Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit; and • Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development. The report also includes a section concerning the Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit. In the case of the City of Southlake, the credit calculation was based on awarding a 50% credit. The final section of the report is the Conclusion, which presents the findings of the update analysis. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 4 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 2.3 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY CALCULATION INPUTS A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS In order to assess an impact fee, Land Use Assumptions must be developed to provide the basis for population and employment growth projections within a political subdivision. As defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, these assumptions include a description of changes in land uses, densities, and population in the service area. In addition, these assumptions are useful in assisting the City of Southlake in determining the need and timing of transportation improvements to serve future development. Information from the following sources was compiled to complete the land use assumptions: • Southlake 2030 (City of Southlake Comprehensive Plan) • Tarrant County Appraisal District (TAD) • North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) • City of Southlake staff. The Land Use Assumptions include the following components: • Land Use Assumptions Methodology — An overview of the general methodology used to generate the land use assumptions. • Roadway Impact Fee Study Service Areas — Explanation of the division of Southlake into two (2) service areas for transportation facilities. • Land Use Assumptions Summary — A synopsis of the land use assumptions. The population and employment estimates and projections were all compiled in accordance with the following categories: 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 5 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 9 Units: Number of dwelling units, both single and multi -family. Population: Number of people, based on person per dwelling unit factors. Employment: Square feet of building area based on three (3) different classifications. Each classification has unique trip making characteristics. Retail: Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector, such as grocery stores and restaurants. Service: Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as government and other professional administrative offices. Basic: Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are exported outside of the local economy, such as manufacturing, construction, transportation, wholesale, trade, warehousing, and other industrial uses. B. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS METHODOLOGY The residential and non-residential growth projections formulated in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update were done using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles. The following factors were considered in developing these projections: • Character, type, density, and quantity of existing development; • Current zoning plans; • Future Land Use Plan (based on Southlake 2030); • Historic Growth trends; • Location of vacant land; and • Physical holding capacity of Southlake. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 6 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 Existing residential and employment estimates were obtained using TAD and DCAD parcel data and an aerial survey of existing development. For the remaining undeveloped areas, assumptions based upon the Southlake 2030 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan were used to estimate the ultimate buildout of residential and employment development. The remaining undeveloped parcels were assumed to reach build out in the next 10 -years. Research of existing building permits was performed to compare the projected growth determined by the previously discussed methodology with growth trends in the City of Southlake over the last ten (10) years. During that period, approximately 1,552 residential units were developed. It was expected that the next ten years of development would be reasonably close to these estimates. No updates were made to the Land Use Assumptions that were utilized in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. C. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY SERVICE AREAS The geographic boundary for the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update service areas for transportation facilities are shown in Exhibit 2.1. The City of Southlake was divided into two (2) service areas for the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. The dividing line between the service areas is SH 114. In the previous 2008 Roadway Impact Fee Study there were three (3) services areas. The two (2) service areas south of SH 114 in the 2008 Study were consolidated into one service area in the 2015 update. D. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY Table 2.1 summarizes the residential and employment 10 -year growth projections. The anticipated growth over the next ten years is similar to historical growth over the previous ten years. These Land Use Assumptions were consistent with those used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 7 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 Table 2.1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees Service Area Year Population Dwelling Units Employment (Square Feet) Basic Service Retail Total 2015 5,568 1,796 45,599 2,629,991 38,060 2,713,650 2025 3,966,782 11,336,791 1,900,659 A (North of SH 114) 7,192 2,320 45,599 5,913,040 10 -Year Growth 1,624 524 0 1,862,599 3,199,390 2015 22,961 7,407 586,673 3,069,005 4,053,962 7,709,640 2025 26,147 8,435 1,377,089 3,827,474 5,512,144 10,716,707 1 B (South of SH 114) 10 -Year Growth11 3,186 1,028 790,416 758,469 1,458,182 3,007,067 2015 28,529 9,203 632,272 5,698,996 4,092,022 10,423,290 2025 33,339 10,755 1,422,688 7,794,256 7,412,803 16,629,747 Total (Citywide) 10 -Year Growth 4,810 1,552 790,416 2,095,260 3,320,781 6,206,457 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 8 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Roanoke Trophy Club J Westlake Legend Service Areas � Major Roads N �Oi SH 114 S Local Roads LiT-tLl Colle yville City Limits Lakes Streams :e Rd. a a z U Z S Y o z Florence Rd. y D Johnson Rd. West Southlake Blvd. m a' a U a N Union Church West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd. Legend Service Areas � Major Roads N �Oi SH 114 S Local Roads Colle yville City Limits Lakes Streams 1 C Miles 2017 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update SOUTHLAKE 9 Exhibit 2.1 Service Area Boundaries 2 Grapevine Euless CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The City has identified the City -funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees is made up of: • Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth; • Projects currently under construction; and • Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. The CIP includes frontage road, arterial, and collector facilities as well as intersection improvements. All of the frontage road, arterial, and collector facilities are part of the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees that are proposed for the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update are listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, and mapped in Exhibit 2.2 (Service Area North) and Exhibit 2.3 (Service Area South). The tables show the limits of each project as well as the facility's classification. The CIP was developed in conjunction with input from City of Southlake staff and represents those projects that will be needed to accommodate the growth projected from the land use assumptions. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 10 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 Table 2.2 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area North Service Are a Proj. # Impact Fee Clas s Roadway Limits N-1 A4D 100 1/2 Kirkwood Blvd 1 Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. N-2 A4D 100 Kirkwood Blvd 2 E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. N-3 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. 1 E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd- lvdN-4 N-4I A4D 88 1/2 N White Chapel Blvd. 2 Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR N-5 A4D 100 E Kirkwood Blvd 3 Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. N-6 A4U 88 E Kirkwood Blvd 4 Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. N-7 A4D 88 E Kirkwood Blvd 5 N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. N-8 A4D 100 1/2 E Kirkwood Blvd 6 H' nd St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way N-9 A4D 100 1/2 E Kirkwood Blvd 7 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N KimballAve. ' 0 N-10 A4D 88 N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 z N-11 I Frontage Road SH 114 WBFR Kirkwood Blvd. to E. Dove Rd- dIntersection I-1 A3U(70) IntersectionImprovement (WB and NB right -turn) N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd I-2 Roundabout N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. Kirkwood Blvd I-3 Signal Installation N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. I-9 Intersection Improvement (WB and NB right -turn) E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 I-10 U-turn Lanes Kirkwood Blvd. & SH 114 Table 2.3 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area South Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits S-1 A4D 130-140 FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy. S-2 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 to Highbrid St. S-3 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. to Emerald Blvd - S -4 A313(70) N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd - S -5 C2U 60 Tower Dr. &Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrol Ave. S-6 C2U 60 Zena Rucker Rd 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr. S-7 A4D 88 1/2 S Carroll Ave. 1 Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr. S-8 A4D 88 i/2 S Carroll Ave. 2 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way S-9 C2U 60 Village Center Dr. 1 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to Geor a Dawson S-10 C2U 60 Village Center Dr. 2 S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. S-11 A4D 94 Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits S-12 A3U(70) W Highland St. White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 I-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonviffe Ave. I-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Pkwy. I-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. I-7 Roundabout Dove Rd. & Peytonviffe Ave. s c I-8 Intersection Improvement (SB right -turn) E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 I-11 Intersection Improvement (NB & SB left- em W. Southlake Blvd. & N. Pearson Ln. I-12 Intersection Improvement (SB right -turn and extend NB left -turn) W. Southlake Blvd. & N. White Chapel Blvd. I-13 Intersection Improvement (EB & WB left tum) E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Carroll Ave. I-14 Intersection Improvement (SB right -turn) E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Kimball Ave. I-15 Roundabout E. Dove Rd. & Shady Oaks Dr. I-16 Intersection Improvement (NB right -turn) Shady Oaks Dr. & W. Highland St. Intersection Improvement (NB right -tum, EB left and right -turn, WB left -turn) W. Continental Blvd &Davis Blvd. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 11 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 91 The various roadway classifications describe the purpose and function of each roadway. These roadway classifications are based on the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan. There are twelve (12) primary classifications on the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan that were used in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update. These classifications are: • Freeway — 300' to 500' • A6D — 130' to 150' Arterial • A61) — 124' Arterial • A5U — 84' Arterial • A4D — 100' Arterial • A4D — 94' Arterial • A4D 88' Arterial • A2U 88' Arterial • A3U — 70' Arterial • C2U - 84' Collector • C2U — 70' Collector • C2U — 60' Collector Each of the classifications have different vehicular capacities assigned to them (see Table 2.4) based on their roadway characteristics. Arterial thoroughfares are designed to move more traffic and provide a larger amount of capacity. Arterials provide for travel between neighborhoods and commercial areas or serve as routes for thru-traffic from adjacent cities. A collector's primary function is to bring traffic from local streets to arterial facilities. Collectors are intended to move less traffic and are designed with lower vehicular capacity than arterial facilities. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 12 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Trophy Club Westlake o Y 3 West Bob Jones Rd 9 m d Q rn U c y Y s 3 r z I % Dove Rd. I East Dove Rd. Q N-2 Q N.y o U v 9- - O � z s-12 2017 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update SOUTHLAKE 19 Exhibit 2.2 Roadway Improvements Service Area North (N) N.7 N-8 E Highland St. N-1 1 N-6 O ' Y S _ O d A L O N m N-10 U z s -t West South lake Blvd. East Southlake Blvd. s -s S-10 Q Q > o E d m R Y U N C C fn O L U a d s-6 N L West Continental Blvd. y East Continental Blvd. 1 5-tt O1 c 3 Legend y G ~ l' Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes - Other Transportation Projects Streams i OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain 0•5 • Intersection Projects Q City Limits Miles N -11 O N-1 N O� Westlake See Inset DovJ Rd. East Dove R � • — I N-3 N2 Inse a 0 d o ° L Dove Rd. N a S z 5-12 A LL W Highland St. N,Fs Y m I S s -a v rn � Florence Rd. Z y / w 0 h S-4 S-1 J Johnson Rd. West Southlake Blvd. c 0 > m d a' a z y m T J N a. 0 N N N O A m a ur Union Church West Continental Blvd. Legend - Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes - Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects Q City Limits 2017 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Rd SOUTHLAKE t U Exhibit 2.3 Z Roadway Improvements "-5 Service Area South (S) N-7 N-8 N-10 a � �E "-S E Highland St. i N -g N-9 F KirkW °paej�d a p N-10 `m U z I S-5 S-10 S -s61 di a' d o y U � N S-8 East Continental Blvd. 5-11 C f Colleyville 0 0.5 1 Miles Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 2.4 METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES A. SERVICE AREA The service areas used in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update are shown in the previously referenced Exhibit 2.1. These are the same service areas utilized in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that "the service areas are limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles." Based on the guidance in Chapter 395 and examination of the City of Southlake, two roadway service areas were deemed appropriate. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Southlake. Service Area North is located north of SH 114 and Service Area South is located south of SH 114. Both service areas are approximately four (4) miles in diameter. B. SERVICE UNITS The "service unit" is a measure of consumption or use of the roadway facilities by new development. In other words, it is the measure of supply and demand for roads in the City. For transportation purposes, the service unit is defined as a vehicle -mile. On the supply side, this is a lane -mile of an arterial street. On the demand side, this is a vehicle - trip of one -mile in length. The application of this unit as an estimate of either supply or demand is based on travel during the afternoon peak hour of traffic. This time period is commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips created by new development. Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided (supplied) by a lane -mile of roadway facility. This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, and level of service. The hourly service volumes used in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update are based upon Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria published by the North Central Texas 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 15 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Council of Governments (NCTCOG), but have been adjusted to the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan. The capacity of a freeway (frontage road) has been added along with updates to capacities based on existing counts since the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 show the service volumes utilized in this report. Table 2.4 Level of Use for Proposed Facilities (used in Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply) Roadway Type (MTP Classifications) Median Configuration Hourly Vehicle -Mile Capacity per Lane -Mile of Roadway Facility Frontage Road Undivided 900 A4D —130' to 140' Arterial Divided 725 A4D —100' Arterial Divided 725 A4D — 94' Arterial Divided 725 A4D — 88' Arterial Divided 725 A4U — 88' Arterial Undivided 650 A3U — 70' Arterial Undivided 650 C2U — 60' Collector Undivided 525 Table 2.5 Level of Use for Existing Facilities (used in Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory) Roadway Type Description Hourly Vehicle -Mile Capacity per Lane -Mile of Roadway Facility 2U -C Two lane undivided collector 525 2U -A Two lane undivided arterial 525 3U -C Three lane undivided (TWLTL) collector 650 3U -A Three lane undivided (TWLTL) arterial 650 4U -C Four lane undivided collector 650 4U -A Four lane undivided arterial 725 4D -C Four lane divided collector 725 4D -A Four lane divided arterial 725 5U -A Five lanes undivided arterial 725 6D -A Six lane divided arterial 800 7U -A Seven lane undivided arterial 750 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 16 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn C. COST PER SERVICE UNIT A fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit. In the case of the roadway impact fee, this is the cost for each vehicle -mile of travel. This cost per service unit is the cost to construct a roadway (lane -mile) needed to accommodate a vehicle -mile of travel at a level of service corresponding to the City's standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on a specific list of projects within that service area. The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in each service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is projected to occur in the ten-year period. Chapter 395 requires that Impact Fees be assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur in the city limits within the next ten years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report (Section 2.3.E). As noted earlier, the units of demand are vehicle -miles of travel. D. COST OF THE CIP All of the project costs for the roadway system are eligible to be included in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that the allowable costs are "...including and limited to the: 1. Construction contract price; 2. Surveying and engineering fees; 3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and 4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the Capital Improvement Plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision." The engineer's opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part, on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per linear foot of roadway is calculated based on an average price for the various components of roadway 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 17 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 91 construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of facility being constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The costs for location - specific items such as bridges, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other special components are added to each project as appropriate. 1. Review of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Sheets The following section provides an overview of the costing sheets specifically developed for each Roadway Impact Fee project. The costing sheet contains the following four elements: • Project Information; • Construction Pay Items; • Construction Component Allowances; and • Summary of Costs and Allowances The 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update incorporates two different versions of the costing sheets. The first type of costing is used to summarize the costing of roadway projects that had been previously constructed or estimates have been determined in past CIP Budgets, in the Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study, or the newly added SH 114 Frontage Road Project. The second version of costing sheets consists of projects that possess no previous costing estimates. Costing sheets that summarize the known cost of projects include the first two elements listed above (Project Information and Construction Pay Items) as the costing sheets with no previous estimates contain all four of the elements. This costing methodology remains unchanged since 2015. For intersection projects, individual costing sheets are not provided. For newly identified intersection projects in the Southlake Citywide Intersection Analysis, conceptual cost are provided and these were utilized when determining CIP cost. A sample costing sheet is provided below with the location of the four sections highlighted. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 18 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley»>Horn City of Southlake 2097 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 19 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 10/9/2017' Project Information: Description: Project No. N-2 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (2) This project consists of the construction of a new Limits: E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. four -lane divided arterial. Project Information Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: 4 -1 -ane Divided Arterial Length (If): 2,295 Service Area(s): N Construction Pay Items Construction Component Allowances Summary of Costs and Allowances 2. Project Information In order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first identified: • Project Number — Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding number. The corresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used only to identify projects. For example, Project N-2 is in Service Area North and is the 2nd project on the list. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 19 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Roadway Construction Cost Projection No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 16,830 cy $ 10.00 $ 168,300 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 13,770 sy $ 6.00 $ 82,620 308 8" Concrete Pavement 12,750 sy $ 46.00 $ 586,500 323 4" Topsoil 10,455 sy $ 2.50 $ 26,138 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 22,950 sf $ 4.50 $ 103,275 608 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 1,217 sy $ 52.00 $ 63,286 3,50 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,030,119 •Item Description• aNINE lNotes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control ne Anticipated 0% $ - Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 30,904 v Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 360,542 J Illumination 6% $ 61,807 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 30,904 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 20,602 N Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,602 N Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 41,205 Miscellaneous: $0 $ - -Allowances based on %of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 566,565 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,596,684 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 239,503 Mobilizationj 5% $ 79,834 Prep ROW 3%1$ 47,901 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,964,000 2. Project Information In order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first identified: • Project Number — Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding number. The corresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used only to identify projects. For example, Project N-2 is in Service Area North and is the 2nd project on the list. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 19 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Construction: - $ 1, Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ Previous City contribution J392,800 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed$5persquarefoot $5 $ 1,Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 3,50 2. Project Information In order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first identified: • Project Number — Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding number. The corresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used only to identify projects. For example, Project N-2 is in Service Area North and is the 2nd project on the list. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 19 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 • Name — A unique identifier for each project. In some cases, multiple projects occur on the same roadway. In this situation, the names of these projects are designated a number, such as "1" or "2," in order to distinguish them. For example, in Service Area North, two projects are located along N. White Chapel Blvd. The northern most project was designated the name "N. White Chapel Blvd. (1)", and the project immediately south was designated the name "N. White Chapel Blvd (2)." • Limits — Represents the beginning and ending location for each project. • Impact Fee Class — The costing class to be used in the analysis. The impact fee class provides the functional classification, width and number of lanes attributed to each roadway project. The construction costs are variable, calculated based on the twelve classification categories outlined in the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan. These twelve classes are listed in Section 2.3.E and the impact fee classes assigned to the IF projects can be seen in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3. For example, A4D(100) signifies a 4 lane, divided arterial that is 100 feet in width. An A4D(100) Impact Fee Class means the entire roadway is to be constructed. Additional classifications are utilized in cases where a portion of the facility currently exists and the road is only to be widened. The following notation is used for these projects: o "(1/2)" for facilities where half the facility still needs to be constructed; • Ultimate Class — Corresponds to the functional classification on the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan. • Length (U — The distance measured in feet that is used to cost out the project. • Service Areas) — Represents the service area where the project is located. • Description — Used to describe the project type assumed in the costing such as a widening or reconstruction. 3. Construction Pay Items A typical roadway project consists of a number of costs, including the following: planning, survey, design engineering, permitting, right -of way acquisition, and construction and inspection. While the construction cost component of a project may actually consist of 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 20 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 approximately 100 various pay items, a simplified approach was used for developing the conceptual level project costs. The table below summarizes the pay items for concrete roads. 11 Concrete Pay Items • Unclassified street excavation • Lime Stabilization • Concrete pavement and curb • Topsoil • Concrete Sidewalk • Turn lanes and median openings 4. Construction Component Allowances A percentage of the paving construction cost is allotted for various major construction component allowances, as appropriate. These allowances include traffic control, pavement markings and signage, roadway drainage, illumination, minor water and sewer adjustments, landscaping and irrigation. These allowance percentages are also based on historical data. In addition, lump sum dollar allowances are provided for special drainage structures, railroad crossings, and intersection improvements where needs are anticipated. The paving and allowance subtotal is given a fifteen percent (15%) construction contingency, five percent (5%) mobilizations, and three (3%) preparation of right-of-way to determine the construction cost total. 5. Summary of Cost and Allowances To determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, twenty percent (20%) of the construction cost total is added for engineering, surveying, and testing. An allotment for ROW/easement acquisition was calculated for each project individually based on an assumption of $5 per square foot of ROW land value. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 21 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Funding contributions for roadway projects from private and public entities other than the City of Southlake have been subtracted from the corresponding City projects. The Impact Fee Project Cost Total is the Construction Cost Total plus engineering, surveying, and testing; plus ROW/easement acquisition; and minus roadway funding contributions from other entities. E. SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP COST Tables 2.6 and 2.7 are the 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP project lists for each service area with planning level project costs. Individual project cost worksheets can be seen in Appendix A, Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections. It should be noted that these tables reflect only conceptual -level opinions or assumptions regarding the portions of future project costs that are recoverable through impact fees. Actual project costs are likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be predicted. The 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP establishes the list of projects for which Impact Fees may be utilized. Essentially, it establishes a list of projects for which an impact fee funding program can be established. Projects not included in the Roadway Impact Fee CIP are not eligible to receive impact fee funding. The 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP is different from a City's construction CIP, which provides a short-term list of projects that the City is committed to building. The 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP for Impact Fees is simply an inventory of future projects needed to serve future development. The cost projections utilized in this study should not be utilized for the City's construction CIP. The 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP accounts for all the projects listed in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update CIP along with several projects along SH 114 from Kirkwood Boulevard to Dove Road (N-11 and I-8 to I-10) and capacity related recommendations (I-11 to I-17) from the Southlake Citywide Intersection Analysis. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 22 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Table 2.6 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections - Service Area North Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) Total Project Cost N-1 A41)(100)(1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 $ 1,300,000 N-2 A41)(I00) Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd 0.43 $ 3,504,300 N-3 A4D(88) N White Chapel Blvd (1) E. Dove Rd to Kirkwood Blvd 0.34 $ 1,850,000 N4 I A41)(88)(1/2) N White Chapel Blvd (2) Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR 0.23 $ 1,050,000 N-5 A41)(100) E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. 0.42 $ 5,699,000 N-6 A41J(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. 0.16 $ 822,000 N-7 A4D(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (5) N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. 0.16 $ 1,159,000 N-8 A41)(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way 0.33 $ 2,625,000 N-9 A41)(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. 0.29 $ 861,600 r. N-10 A41)(88) N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 1.18 $ 10,383,832 m N-11 Frontage Road SH 114 WBFR Kirkwood Blvd to E. Dove Rd 0.97 $ 91000,000 I-1 A31J(70) Intersection Improvement (WB and NB right- turn) N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd 0.60 $ 300,000 I-2 Roundabout N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) $ 1,500,000 s I-3 Signal Installation N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd $ 200,000 e � 19 Intersection Improvement ) (WB and NB right- turn E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 $ 150,000 < 1-10 U-turn Lanes Kirkwood Blvd & SH 114 $ 600,000 I-8 Intersection Improvement (SB right -tum) Service Area Project Cost Subtotal 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Cost Per Service Area $ 41,004,732 $ 15,167 $ 150,000 I-11 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA NORTH (N) $ 41,019,899 Table 2.7 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections - Service Area South Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Li[s (mi) Total Project Cost S-1 A41)(130-140) FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol M81 Bend to West Southlake Pkwy. 1.56 $ 3,465,000 S-2 A4D(88) N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 to Highland St. 0.33 $ 5,452,128 S-3 A4D(88) N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. to Emerald Blvd. 0.81 $ 5,537,858 S-4 I A31J(70) N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd 1.00 $ 4,778,300 S-5 C2U(60) Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd to S. Carml Ave. 0.35 $ 662,118 S-6 C21J(60) Zena Rucker Rd. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr. 0.19 $ 1,026,000 S-7 A41)(88)(1/2) S Carroll Ave. (1) Zena Rucker Rd to Westmont Dr. 0.14 $ 200,000 S-8 A41)(88)(1/2) S Carroll Ave. (2) 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way 0.09 $ 331,960 S-9 C21J(60) Village Center Dr. (1) 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway 0.44 $ 2,476,675 S-10 C21J(60) Village Center Dr. (2) S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. 0.33 $ 1,684,500 S-11 A41)(94) Brumlew Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits 0.76 $ 4,904,625 S-12 A31J(70) W Highland St. White Chapel Rd to SH 114 0.60 $ 2,615,700 I-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 1,500,000 s I-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd & Byron Nelson Pkwy. $ 2,500,000 e � I-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd & Highland St. $ 1,500,000 < I-7 Roundabout Dove Rd & Peytonville Ave. $ 2,410,000 I-8 Intersection Improvement (SB right -tum) E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 $ 150,000 I-11 Intersection Improvement (NB & SB left -turn) W. Southlake Blvd & N. Pearson Ln $ 120,000 I-12 Intersection Improvement (SB right -tum and extend NB left -tum) W Southlake Blvd & N. White Chapel Blvd $ 458,000 I -13 Intersection Improvement (EB & WB left - turn) E. Southlake Blvd & N. Carroll Ave. $ 2,100,000 I-14 Intersection Improvement (SB right -tum) E. Southlake Blvd & N. Kimball Ave. $ 323,000 I-15 Roundabout E. Dove Rd & Shady Oaks Dr. $ 1,500,000 I-16 Intersection Improvement (NB right -tum) Shady Oaks Dr. & W. Highland St. $ 140,000 I-17 Intersection Improvement (NB right -tum, EB left and right -turn, WB lefr-tum W. Continental Blvd & Davis Blvd. $ 760,000 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Cost Per Service Area $ 46,595,864 $ 15,167 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA SOUTH (S) $ 46,611,031 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Mjnor Update 23 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn F. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION The basic service unit for the computation of the City of Southlake's roadway impact fees is the vehicle -mile of travel during the afternoon peak hour. To determine the cost per service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle -miles of travel for the service area for the ten-year study period. The growth in vehicle -miles from 2015 to 2025 is based upon projected changes in residential and non-residential growth for the period. In order to determine this growth, baseline estimates of population, basic square feet, service square feet, and retail square feet for 2015 were made along with projections for each of these demographic statistics through 2025. The Land Use Assumptions (see Table 2.1) details the growth estimates used for the impact fee determination. For the purposes of the study, these values have not changed from the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. The residential and non-residential statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provide the "independent variables" that are used to calculate the existing (2015) and projected (2025) transportation service units used to establish the roadway impact fee maximum rates within each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle -miles) for each service area are the sum of the vehicle -miles "generated" by each category of land use in the service area. For the purpose of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected population is converted to dwelling units. The number of dwelling units in each service area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle -miles of travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor computes the average amount of demand caused by the residential land uses in the service area. The transportation demand factor is discussed in more detail below. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 24 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions provide the existing and projected amount of building square footages for three (3) categories of non-residential land uses — basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of non-residential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. This independent variable is more appropriate than the number of employees because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generation and is known at the time of application for any development or development modification that would require the assessment of an impact fee. The existing and projected land use assumptions for the dwelling units and the square footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase in vehicle -miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is applied to these values and then summed to calculate the total peak -hour vehicle -miles of demand for each service area. The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources — the ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, and the regional Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by the NCTCOG and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, provides the number of trips that are produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit, square foot of building, or other corresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to account for the fact that a percentage of retail trips are made by people who would otherwise be traveling past that particular establishment anyway, such as a trip between work and home. These trips are called pass -by trips, and since the travel demand is accounted for in the land use calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to discount the retail rate to avoid double counting trips. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 25 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the region -wide travel characteristics survey conducted by the NCTCOG and the NETS. The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following equation: Variables: TDF=T*(1—Pb)*Lmax where... Lmax = min(L * OD or SAL) TDF = Transportation Demand Factor; T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit); Pb = Pass -By Discount (% of trips); Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles); L = Average Trip Length (miles); OD = Origin -Destination Reduction (50%); and SAL = Max Service Area Trip Length (see Table 2.8). For land uses which are characterized by longer average trip lengths (primarily residential uses), the maximum trip length has been limited to four (4) miles based on the maximum trip length within each service area. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code allows for a service area of six (6) miles; however the service area within the City of Southlake is approximated to be a four (4) mile distance. The adjustment made to the average trip length (L) statistic in the computation of the maximum trip length (Lmax) is the origin -destination reduction (OD). This adjustment is made because the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example, the impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work within the City of Southlake to both residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips as both residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 26 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use. Table 2.8 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land uses and the three (3) non-residential land uses. The values utilized for all variables shown in the Transportation Demand Factor equation are also shown in the table. Table 2.8 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations Variable Residential Basic Service Retail (General Light (General Office) (Shopping Industrial) Center) T 1.00 0.97 1.49 3.71 Pb 0% 0% 0% 34% T (with Pb) 1.00 0.97 1.49 2.45 L 17.21 10.02 10.92 6.43 (miles) SAL 4.00 4.06 4.00 4.00 Lmax * (miles) 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.22 TDF 4.00 1 3.88 1 5.96 7.89 * Lmax is less than 4 miles for retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used for calculating the TDF for retail land uses The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are presented in the 10 -Year Growth Projections in Table 2.9. This table shows the total vehicle -miles by service area for the years 2015-2025. These estimates and projections lead to the Vehicle Miles of Travel for 2015-2025. These values utilized are the same the numbers used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 27 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kim|ey) Horn \ CD § § / \ / ) � L_ r \ LL * 2 f E -jm aw Lk & A z n § § CITY or \OUTHLAKE 9 3ERoadway Impact Fee Minor Update a November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas )ch a § En )$ ch 0 } � \ # \ \ `ER /\\)\{» E > 22&&±5 , § m m ) L \ 2) 2 a a 0 \(\\\(a 22=__cE z{ °10- 4 % \ o o e £ Fa 20U) \)f\ƒ\C G ` [) 0. E \ ((\) Q j /))) -5 ) 0 &P/m3/ CITY or \OUTHLAKE 9 3ERoadway Impact Fee Minor Update a November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn 2.5 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT This section presents the maximum assessable roadway impact fee rate calculated for each service area. The maximum assessable roadway impact fee is the sum of the eligible 2017 Impact Fee CIP costs for the service area divided by the growth in travel attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10 -year period. A majority of the components of this calculation have been described and presented in previous sections of this report. The purpose of this section is to document the computation for each service area and to demonstrate that the guidelines provided by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code have been addressed. Table 2.10 illustrates the computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for each service area. Each row in the table is numbered to simplify explanation of the calculation. Table 2.10 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation Line Title Description Total Vehicle -Miles The total number of vehicle -miles added to the service area based on the capacity, length, and number of lanes 1 of Capacity Added in each project. (from Appendix B — CIP Service Units by the CIP of Supply) Each project identified in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP will add a certain amount of capacity to the City's roadway network based on its length and classification. This line displays the total amount added within the service area. Total Vehicle -Miles A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the 2 of Existing roadway facilities upon which capacity is being added. Demand (from Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply) A number of facilities identified in the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP have traffic currently utilizing a portion of their existing capacity. This line displays the total amount of capacity along these facilities currently being used by existing traffic. Total Vehicle -Miles Number of vehicle -miles of travel that are not 3 of Existing accommodated by the existing roadway system. (from Deficiencies Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory) 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 29 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 In order to ensure that existing deficiencies on the City's roadway network are not recoverable through impact fees, this line is based on the entire roadway network within the service area. Any roadway within the service area that is deficient — even those not identified on the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP — will have these additional trips removed from the calculation. Net Amount of A measurement of the amount of vehicle -miles added by 4 Vehicle -Miles of the CIP that will not be utilized by existing demand. Capacity Added Line 1— Line 2 — Line 3 Total Cost of the The total cost of the projects within the service area 5 CIP within the (from Table 2.6/Table 2.7 - 10 -Year Roadway Capital Service Area Improvement Plan with Conceptual Level Cost Projections) This line simply identifies the total cost of all of the projects identified in the service area. Cost of Net The total CIP cost (Line 5) prorated by the ratio of Net 6 Capacity Supplied 1). Capacity Added (Line Li e4) to e Sal Capacity Added (Line [(Line 4 / ) ( )I Using the ratio of vehicle -miles added by the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP available to serve future growth to the total vehicle -miles added, the total cost of the 2017 Impact Fee CIP is reduced to the amount available for future growth (i.e., excluding existing usage and deficiencies). Cost to Meet The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line 7 Existing Needs and 5) and the Cost of the Net Capacity supplied (Line 6). Usage Line 5 — Line 6 This line is provided for information purposes only — it is to present the portion of the total cost of the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP that is required to meet existing demand. Total Vehicle -Miles Based upon the growth projection provided in the Land 8 of New Demand Use Assumptions (see Section 2.3), an estimate of the over Ten Years number of new vehicle -miles within the service area over the next ten years. (from Table 2.9) This line presents the amount of growth (in vehicle -miles) projected to occur within each service area over the next ten years. 9 Percent of The result of dividing Total Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity Added Demand (Line 8) by the Net Amount of Capacity Added 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 30 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Attributable to New (Line 4), limited to 100% (Line 10). This calculation is Growth required by Chapter 395 to ensure capacity added is 10 Chapter 395 Check attributable to new growth. In order to ensure that the vehicle -miles added by the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP do not exceed the amount needed to accommodate growth beyond the ten-year window, a comparison of the two values is performed. If the amount of vehicle -miles added by the Roadway Impact Fee CIP exceeds the growth projected to occur in the next ten years, the Roadway Impact Fee CIP cost is reduced accordingly. Cost of Capacity The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity 11 Added Attributable Added (Line 6) by the Percent of Capacity Added to New Growth Attributable to New Growth, limited to 100% (Line 10). The value of the total 2017 Roadway Impact Fee CIP project costs (excluding financial costs) that may be recovered through impact fees. This line is determined considering the limitations to impact fees required by the Texas legislature. B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees to contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. Section 395.014 of the Code states: "(7) A plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program..." The following table summarizes the portions of Table 2.10 that utilize this credit calculation, based on awarding a 50 percent credit. Line Title Description Cost of Capacity Added Assume 50% of future projects to be funded through debt at a rate of 12 Attributable to New 4.25%. Growth with Financing 13 Credit A credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost, as per section 395.014 of the Texas Local Government Code. Maximum Assessable Found by dividing the Recoverable Cost of the CIP attributable to 14 growth (Line 13) by the Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand Over Fee Per Service Unit Ten Years(Line 8). Line 13 / Line 8 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 31 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn Table 2.11 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 32 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas SERVICE AREA: North (N) South (S) TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP 1 (FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CII' 13,124 14,194 SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND 2 (FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CII' 2,324 5,439 SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES 3 (FROM EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES 0 3,278 INVENTORY, APPENDIX C) 4 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITYADDED 10,800 5,477 (LINE 1 - LINE 2 - LINE 3) 5 TOTAL COST OF THE CII' WITHIN SERVICE AREA $ 41,019,899 $ 46,611,031 (FROM TABLES 2.6 and 2.7) 6 COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED $ 33,756,089 $ 17,985' 671 (LINE 4 / LINE 1) * (LINE 5) 7 SING NEEDS AND USAGE COST TO MEET EXISTING $ 7,263,810 $ 28,625,360 ( 8 TOTAL VER -MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS 24 758 23,203 (FROM TABLE 2.9 and Land Use Assumptions) PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDED 9 ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH 229.2% 423.6% (LINE 8 / LINE 4) 10 IF LINE 8 > LINE 4, REDUCE LINE 9 TO MITI., 100.0% 100.0% OTHERWISENO CHANGE 11 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 33,756,089 $ 17,985,671 (LINE 6 * LINE 10) 12 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH WITH $ 38,819,502 $ 22,122,375 FINANCING 13 CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES (50% OF LINE 12) $ 19,409,751 $ 11,061,188 14 MAX A SSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 784 $ 477 (LINE 13 / LINE 8) 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 32 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 9 C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT The roadway impact fee is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate by the number of service units projected for the proposed development. For this purpose, the City utilizes the Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET), presented in Table 2.12. This table lists the predominant land uses that may occur within the City of Southlake. For each land use, the development unit that defines the development's magnitude with respect to transportation demand is shown. Although every possible use cannot be anticipated, the majority of uses are found in this table. If the exact use is not listed, one similar in trip -making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The individual land uses are grouped into categories, such as residential, office, commercial, industrial, and institutional. The trip rate presented for each land use is a fundamental component of the LUVMET. The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by each land use per development unit. The next column, if applicable to the land use, presents the number of trips to and from certain land uses reduced by pass -by trips, as previously discussed. The source of the trip generation and pass -by statistics is the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. This manual utilizes trip generation studies for a variety of land uses throughout the United States, and is the standard used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for traffic impact analysis, site design, and transportation planning. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 33 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>> Horn 91 To convert vehicle trips to vehicle -miles, it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length. The adjusted trip length values are based on the Regional Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by the NCTCOG and the NHTS. The other adjustment to trip length is the 50% origin -destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips. At this stage, another important aspect of the state law is applied — the limit on transportation service unit demand. If the adjusted trip length is above the maximum trip length allowed within the service area, the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to the corresponding value. This reduction, as discussed previously, limits the maximum trip length to the approximate size of the service areas. The remaining column in the LUVMET shows the vehicle -miles per development unit. This number is the product of the trip rate and the maximum trip length. This number, previously referred to as the Transportation Demand Factor, is used in the impact fee estimate to compute the number of service units consumed by each land use application. The number of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City ordinance) in order to determine the impact fee for a development. The LUVMET for the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update was not changed from the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 34 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 Table 2.12 Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) LaodliseCategory ITELand Use Code Deselopment Unit Trip Gen Pass -by Pass -by Rate Rate Source (PM) Trip Rate NCTCOG Trip Length (mi) Adj. For O -D Adj. Trip Max Trip Per Length Pev- De Length (nd) unit (mi) PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Temrinal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 10.02 5011. 5.01 4.00 26.20 INDUSTRIAL General Light Industrial Ito 1,000 SF GFA 0.97 0.97 10.02 50% 5.01 4.00 3.88 General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 SF GFA 0.68 0.68 10.02 5011 5.01 4.00 2.72 Industtial Park 130 1,000 SF GFA 0.85 0.85 10.02 50°/ 5.01 4.00 3.40 Warehousing 150 1,000 SF GFA 0.32 0.32 10.83 5011. 5.42 4.00 1.28 Mini -Warehouse 151 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 1.04 RESIDENTIAL Single -Family Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Unit 1.00 1.00 17.21 50116 8.61 4.00 4.00 Apartment/Multi-finnily 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.62 17.21 501/6 8.61 4.00 2.48 Residential Condominium/Townhome 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.52 1 17.21 5011. 8.61 4.00 2.08 Senior Adult Housing -Detached 251 Dwelling Unit 0.27 0.27 17.21 5011 8.61 4.00 1.08 Senior Adult Housing -Attached 252 Dwelling Unit 0.25 0.25 17.21 5011. 8.61 4.00 1.00 Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.22 0.22 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 0.88 LODGING Hotel 310 Room 0.60 0.60 6.43 50°/ 3.22 3.22 1.93 Motel / Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 6.43 50°/ 3.22 3.22 1.51 RECREATIONAL GolfDriving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.03 Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 6.43 5011 3.22 3.22 0.97 Recreational Community Center 495 1,000 SF GFA 2.74 2.74 6.43 501/6 3.22 3.22 8.82 Ice Skating Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 6.43 501/6 3.22 3.22 7.60 Miniature Golf Course 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 6.43 5011 3.22 3.22 1.06 Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 6.43 5011. 3.22 3.22 43.92 Racquet / Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 6.43 5011. 3.22 3.22 10.79 INST1TU11ONAL 0.00 Church 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.55 0.55 4.20 5001. 2.10 2.10 1.16 Day Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 12.34 440/. B 6.91 4.20 5011. 2.10 2.10 14.51 Primary/Middle School (1-8) 522 Students 0.16 0.16 4.20 50"/ 2.10 2.10 0.34 High School (9-12) 530 Students 0.13 0.13 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.27 Junior/ Comnamity College 540 Students 0.12 0.12 4.20 5001. 2.10 2.10 0.25 University / College 550 Students 0.17 0.17 4.20 50o/ 2.10 2.10 0.36 MEDICAL Clinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.18 7.55 50% 1 3.78 3.78 19.58 Hospital 610 1,000 SF GFA 0.93 0.93 7.55 50"/ 3.78 3.78 3.52 Nursing Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.22 7.55 50"/ 3.78 3.78 0.83 Animal HospitaWetermary Clinic 640 1,000 SF GFA 4.72 300/. B 3.30 7.55 5001. 3.78 3.78 12.47 OFFICE Corporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.41 1.41 10.92 5001, 5.46 4.00 5.64 General Office Building 710 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 1.49 10.92 5001. 5.46 4.00 5.96 Medical -Dental Office Building 720 1,000 SF GFA 3.57 3.57 10.92 50"/ 5.46 4.00 1428 Single Tenant Office Buildin 715 1,000 SF GFA 1.74 1.74 10.92 50o/ 5.46 4.00 6.96 Office Park 750 1,000 SF GFA 1.48 1.48 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 5.92 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 35 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Table 2.12 (Cont'd) Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) LandlkeCategory 1TELand Use Code Development Unit Trip Gen Pass Rate (P" -by Rate Pass -by Source Trip Rate NCrCOG Trip Length (mi) Adj. For O -D Adj. Trip Max Trip Veh-Mi Length PerDev- Length (.W) (mi) Unit CONEVIMCIAL Automobile Related Automobile Care Center 942 1,000 SF Occ. GLA 3.11 1 40% 1 B 1.87 6.43 50% 1 3.22 1 3.22 6.02 Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 5.98 43% A 3.41 6.43 5011. 3.22 3.22 10.98 Gasoline/Service Station 944 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.87 421/6 A 8.04 1.20 501/6 0.60 0.60 4.82 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.51 561/. B 5.94 1.20 5011. 0.60 0.60 3,56 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market and CarW ash 946 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.86 561/6 A 6.10 1.20 500/ 0.60 0.60 3.66 New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 2.62 200/ B 2.10 6.43 5011. 3.22 3.22 6.76 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop 941 Servicing Positions 5.19 400/ B 3.11 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 10.01 Self -Service Car Wash 947 Stall 5.54 400/ B 3.32 1.20 501/6 0.60 0.60 1.99 Tire Store 848 1,000 SF GFA 4.15 28% A 2.99 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 9.63 Dining Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 934 1,000 SF GFA 32.65 500/ A 16.33 4.79 50% 2.40 2.40 39.19 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thm Window 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.15 500/, B 13.08 4.79 5011. 2.40 2.40 31.39 High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant 932 1,000 SF GFA 9.85 43% A 5.61 4.79 500/ 2.40 2.40 13.46 Sit Down Restaurant 931 1,000 SF GFA 7.49 441/. A 4.19 4.79 500/ 2.40 2.40 10.06 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Thru Window 937 1,000 SF GFA 42.80 70% A 12.84 4.79 500/ 2.40 2.40 30.82 Other Retail Free-StandingRetail Store 815 1,000 SF GFA 4.98 30% C 3.49 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 11.24 Nursery (Carden Center) 817 1,000 SF GFA 6.94 300/ B 4.86 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 15.65 Home Improvement Superstore 862 1,000 SF GFA 2.33 48% A 1.21 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 3.90 Pharmacy/Drugstore 881 1,000 SF GFA 9.91 49% A 5.05 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 16.26 Shopping Center 820 1,000 SF GLA 3.71 341/. A 2.45 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 7.89 Su ennarket 850 1,000 SF GFA 9.48 36% A 6.07 6.43 500/ 3.22 3.22 19.55 To /Cbildren's Superstore 864 1,000 SF GFA 4.99 30% B 3.49 6.43 5001, 3.22 3.22 11.24 Department Store 875 1,000 SF GFA 1.87 30% B 1.31 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.22 SERVICES Walk -In Bank 911 1,000 SF GFA 12.13 400/ 1 B 1 7.28 1 3.39 500/ 1.70 190 12.38 Drive -In Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes 33.24 47% A 17.62 3.39 50% 1.70 1.70 29.95 Hair Salon 918 1,000 SF GLA 1.45 1 30% B 1 1.02 1 3.39 50% 1.70 1.70 1.73 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 36 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn 2.6 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculations. Example 1: • Development Type - One (1) Unit of Single -Family Housing in Service Area North Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps — Example 1 Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Stepo From Table 2.12 [Land Use Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] I Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single -Family Detached Housing Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.00 Step Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit 2 From Table 2. 11, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Maximum Fee for Ci of Southlake (Service Area North): $784 / vehicle -mile Determine Maximum A-.,essable Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 1 * 4.00 * $784 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $3,136 Example 2: • Development Type —125,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area South Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps — Example 2 Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Step From Table 2.12 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] I Development Type: 125,000 square feet of Home Improvement Superstore Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 3.90 Step Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit 2 From Table 2. 11, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Maximum Fee for City of Southlake (Service Area South): $477 / vehicle -mile Determine Maximum Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 125 * 3.90 * $477 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $232,538 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 37 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn 2.7 CONCLUSION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 The City of Southlake has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be assessed by the City of Southlake. This report accounted for the addition of eleven projects to the CIP which included the SH 114 WBFR (N-11), and intersection projects I-8 to I-17. With these additional projects, the cost of the CIP rose from that calculated in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. The maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculated in this report is $784 for Service Area North and $477 for Service Area South (from Table 2.11) for the 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update. The maximum assessable roadway impact fee rose $211 and $67 for Service Area North and South, respectively. This document serves as a guide to the assessment of roadway impact fees pertaining to future development and the City's need for roadway improvements to accommodate that growth. Following the public hearing process, the City Council may establish an amount to be assessed (if any) up to the maximum established within this report and update the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance accordingly. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this update are appropriate and consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Land Use Assumptions and the proposed Capital Improvement Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 38 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn APPENDICES A. Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B. CIP Service Unit Supply C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update 39 November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 A. APPENDIX A - CONCEPTUAL LEVEL PROJECT COST PROJECTIONS 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Roadway Improvements - Service Area North (N) # IF Classification Project From Limits To Project Cost N-1 A4D(100)(1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. Stockton Dr. $ 1,300,000 N-2 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. N White Chapel Blvd. $ 3,504,300 N-3 A4D(88) N White Chapel Blvd. (1) E. Dove Rd. Kirkwood Blvd. $ 1,850,000 N-4 A4D(88)(1/2) N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 WBFR $ 1,050,000 N-5 A4D(100) E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Carillon Development Existing Highland St. $ 5,699,000 N-6 A4U(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. N. Carroll Ave. $ 822,000 N-7 A4D(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (5) N. Carroll Ave. Highland St. $ 1,159,000 N-8 A4D(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Highland St. 835 Feet West of Blessed Way $ 2,625,000 N-9 A4D(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) 935 Feet East of Blessed Way N Kimball Ave. $ 861,600 N-10 A4D(88) N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. SH 114 $ 10,383,832 N-11 Frontage Road SH 114 WBFR Kirkwood Blvd. E. Dove Rd. $ 9,000,000 Intersection Improvements 1-1 Intersection Improvement (WB and NB right -turn) N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. $ 300,000 1-2 Roundabout N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) $ 1,500,000 1-3 Signal Installation N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. $ 200,000 I-9 Intersection Improvement (WB and NB right -turn) E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 $ 150,000 1-10 U-turn Lanes Kirkwood Blvd. & SH 114 $ 600,000 TOTAL $ 41,004,732 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Limits: Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. Impact Fee Class: A4D(1 00)(1 /2) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 2,100 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane concrete facility to a four -lane divided arterial. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of $1,300,000. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 980,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 320,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,300,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (2) This project consists of the construction of a new Limits: E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. four -lane divided arterial. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 2,295 Service Area(s): N Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,964,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 16,830 cy $ 10.00 $ 168,300 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 13,770 sy $ 6.00 $ 82,620 308 8" Concrete Pavement 12,750 sy $ 46.00 $ 586,500 323 4" Topsoil 10,455 sy $ 2.50 $ 26,138 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 22,950 1,217 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ 1 $ 103,275 63,286 608 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,030,119 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 30,904 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 360,542 �I Illumination 6% $ 61,807 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 30,904 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 20,602 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,602 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 41,205 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 566,565 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,596,684 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 239,503 Mobilization 5% $ 79,834 Prep ROW 3% $ 47,901 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,964,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,964,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 392,800 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: JAssumed $5 per square foot $5 $ 1,147,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 1 $ 3,504,300 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: N White Chapel Blvd. (1) Limits: E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,800 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four -lane divided arterial. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of $1,850,000. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 1,480,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 370,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,850,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Limits: Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,205 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of the two southbound lanes to complete a four -lane divided arterial. The two northbound lanes are assumed to be developer built based on an existing agreement. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an anticiaated Citv contribution of $1.050.000. Impact.Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 800,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 250,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,050,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Limits: Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 2,240 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study (August 2014), the estimated cost was $5,000,000 for construction, engineering, survey, and testing. Impact•Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 1,750,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other Standard Bridge Construction and Design $ 3,250,000 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 699,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,699,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update updated: 11/9/2017 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Project Information: Description: Project No. N-6 Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) This project consists of the reconstruction of an Limits: Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane Impact Fee Class: A4U(88) undivided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Undivided Arterial Boulevard Alignment Study (August 2014), the Length (If): 840 estimated cost was $750,000 for construction, engineering, survey, and testing. Service Area(s): N Impact•Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 750,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 72,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 822,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (5) Limits: N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 840 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study (August 2014), the estimated cost was $1,000,000 for construction, engineering, survey, and testing. Impact•Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 1,000,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 159,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,159,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Limits: Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)(1/2) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,730 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the widening an existing two-lane concrete facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study (August 2014), the estimated cost was $800,000 for construction, engineering, survey, and testing. Note this project includes the previous City cost of the existing northern two lanes and the Highland St. & Kirkland Blvd. intersection project. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 800,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Cost of original two lanes No ROW Acquisition Costs included $ 1,825,000 -oar-' Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,625,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) This project consists of the widening an Limits: 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. existing two-lane concrete facility into a Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)(1/2) four -lane divided arterial. Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,540 Service Area(s): N Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 718,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 104 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 6,844 cy $ 10.00 $ 68,444 sy 204 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 4,620 $ 6.00 $ 27,720 304 8" Concrete Pavement 4,278 sy $ 46.00 $ 196,778 sy 319 4" Topsoil 4,534 $ 2.50 $ 11,336 504 5' Concrete Sidewalk 7,700 sf $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ $ 34,650 37,416 604 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings 720 1 sy Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 376,345 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 11,290 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 131,721 �I Illumination 6% $ 22,581 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 11,290 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 7,527 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 7,527 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 15,054 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 206,989 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 583,334 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 87,500 Mobilization 5% $ 29,167 Prep ROW 3% $ 17,500 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 718,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 718,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 143,600 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: I No ROW Acquisition costs included I $ - Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 861,600 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: N Kimball Ave. Limits: E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 6,225 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consisted of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 8,191,709 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 1,180,306 Other $1,204,000 from the City of Grapevine $ (1,204,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: $ 2,215,816 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 10,383,832 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: SH 114 WBFR Limits: Kirkwood Blvd. to E. Dove Rd. Impact Fee Class: Frontage Road Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Frontage Road Length (If): 5,100 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane frontage road. It is anticipated that the City will contribute $9,000,000 to this project. Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 9,000,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 9,000,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Roadway Improvements - Service Area South (S) # 2007 # IF Class Project Limits From To Project Cost S-1 B-3 A4D(130-140) FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend West Southlake Pkwy. $ 3,465,000 S-2 B-5, C-18 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 Highland St. $ 5,452,128 S-3 B-5, C-18 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. Emerald Blvd. $ 5,537,858 S-4 B-1 A3U 70 N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. West Southlake Blvd. $ 4,778,300 S-5 N/A C2U(60) Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd. S. Carrol Ave. $ 662,118 S-6 C-9 C2U(60) Zena Rucker Rd. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. Tower Dr. $ 1,026,000 S-7 C-10 A4D(88)(1/2) S Carroll Ave. (1) Zena Rucker Rd. Westmont Dr. $ 200,000 S-8 C-11 A4D(88)(1/2) S Carroll Ave. (2) 120 ft. South of Versailles 290 ft. North of Breeze Way $ 331,960 S-9 C-13 C2U(60) Village Center Dr. (1) 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. George Dawson Driveway $ 2,476,675 S-10 N/A C2U(60) Village Center Dr. (2) IS Kimball Ave. S Nolen Dr. I $ 1,684,500 S-11 C-12 A4D(94) Brumlow Ave. IlEast Continental Blvd. 250' North of Southern City Limits I $ 4,904,625 S-12 C-7 A3U(70) W Highland St. IWhite Chapel Rd. ISH 114 $ 2,615,700 Intersection Improvements 1-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 1,500,000 1-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Pkwy. $ 2,500,000 1-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. $ 1,500,000 1-7 Roundabout Dove Rd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 2,410,000 18 Intersection Improvement (SB right turn) E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 $ 150,000 1-11 Intersection Improvement (NB & SB left -turn) W. Southlake Blvd. & N. Pearson Ln. $ 120,000 I-12 Intersection Improvement (SB right- turn and extend NB left -turn) W. Southlake Blvd. & N. White Chapel Blvd. $ 458,000 1-13 Intersection Improvement (EB & WB left -turn) E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Carroll Ave. $ 2,100,000 1-14 Intersection Improvement (SB right- turn) E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Kimball Ave. $ 323,000 I-15 Roundabout E. Dove Rd. & Shady Oaks Dr. $ 1,500,000 I-16 Intersection Improvement (NB right turn) Shady Oaks Dr. & W. Highland St. $ 140,000 I-17 Intersection Improvement (NB right turn, EB left and right -turn, WB left- turn) W. Continental Blvd. & Davis Blvd. $ 760,000 TOTAL $ 46,595,864 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: FM 1938 Phase 2 This project consists of the reconstruction of an Limits: Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pk\An existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four -lane Impact Fee Class: A4D(130-140) divided arterial. This projects is included in the FY Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial 2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of Length (If): 8,235 $3,465,000. Service Area(s): S Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 2,760,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 1,115,000 Other $660,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund $ (660,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: $ 250,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 3,465,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 Limits: SH 114 to Highland St. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,745 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consisted of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 7,077,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 537,065 Other $1,414,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund / $1,225,000 Utility Fund $ (2,639,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1 $ 477,063 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,452,128 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Limits: Highland St. to Emerald Blvd. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 4,300 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consisted of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 7,077,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 622,795 Other $1,414,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund / $1,225,000 Utility Fund $ (2,639,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1 $ 477,063 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,537,858 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: N Pearson Ln. This project consists of the reconstruction of an Limits: Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd. existing two-lane asphalt facility into a new three - Impact Fee Class: A3U(70) lane arterial. Ultimate Class: 3 -Lane Arterial Length (If): 5,300 Service Area(s): S Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,209,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 23,556 cy $ 10.00 $ 235,556 203 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 22,967 sy $ 6.00 $ 137,800 303 8" Concrete Pavement 21,789 sy $ 46.00 $ 1,002,289 318 4" Topsoil 13,544 sy $ 2.50 $ 33,861 503 5' Concrete Sidewalk 53,000 669 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ 1 $ 238,500 34,798 603 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,682,804 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 50,484 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 588,981 �I Illumination 6% $ 100,968 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 50,484 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 33,656 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 33,656 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 67,312 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 925,542 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,608,345 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 391,252 Mobilization 5% $ 130,417 Prep ROW 3% $ 78,250 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 3,209,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,209,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 641,800 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot I $ 927,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,778,300 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. This project consisted of the construction of two Limits: East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrol Ave. collector facilities. This City contributed $663,000 Impact Fee Class: C2U(60) to the construction of these facilities. Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Collector Length (If): 1,850 Service Area(s): S Impact.Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Cit Contribution to Construction Cost: City contributions: Caroll Median & Drive -lane _ City Improvements ($237,538), Zena Rucker & $ 662,118 Engineering/Survey/Testing Decel Ln. Construction ($44,097), Tower Blvd. Other & Decel Ln. Construction ($262,144), Tower Blvd. Signal ($118,339). ROW/Easement Acquisition: Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 662,118 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: Zena Rucker Rd. Limits: 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr Impact Fee Class: C2U(60) Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Collector Length (If): 1,020 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane collector. Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 600,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 4,533 cy $ 10.00 $ 45,333 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 4,420 sy $ 6.00 $ 26,520 301 8" Concrete Pavement 4,193 sy $ 46.00 $ 192,893 316 4" Topsoil 1,473 sy $ 2.50 $ 3,683 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 10,200 1 0 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 I $ 52.00 $ 45,900 601 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings 1 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 314,330 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 9,430 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 110,016 �I Illumination 6% $ 18,860 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 9,430 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 6,287 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 6,287 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 12,573 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 172,882 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 487,212 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 73,082 Mobilization 5% $ 24,361 Prep ROW 3% $ 14,616 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 600,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 600,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 120,000 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot I $ 306,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,026,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: S Carroll Ave. (1) Limits: Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 720 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of driveway modifications to the Shops of Southlake and a traffic signal at the intersection of S. Carroll Ave. & Zena Rucker Rd. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of $200,000. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 338,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 50,000 Other $188,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund $ (188,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 200,000 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 Name: S Carroll Ave. (2) This project consists of the Limits: 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way widening of an existing two - Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) lane facility into a four -lane Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial divided arterial. Length (If): 500 Service Area(s): S Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 232,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 106 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 2,222 cy $ 10.00 $ 22,222 206 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 1,500 sy $ 6.00 $ 9,000 306 8" Concrete Pavement 1,389 sy $ 46.00 $ 63,889 321 4" Topsoil 1,194 sy $ 2.50 $ 2,986 506 5' Concrete Sidewalk 2,500 234 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ $ 11,250 12,148 604 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 121,495 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 3,645 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 42,523 �I Illumination 6% $ 7,290 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 3,645 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 2,430 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 2,430 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 4,860 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 66,822 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 188,318 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 28,248 Mobilization 5% $ 9,416 Prep ROW 3% $ 5,650 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 232,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 232,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 46,400 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: JAssumed $5 per square foot I $ 53,560 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 1 $ 331,960 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: Village Center Dr. (1) Limits: 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway Impact Fee Class: C2U(60) Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Collector Length (If): 2,340 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane collector. Note that $124,675 was included for the City's contribution to George Dawson Driveway. Roadway • .n Cost Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,375,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price $ 124,675 Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 10,400 cy $ 10.00 $ 104,000 10,140 sy 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) $ 6.00 $ 60,840 301 8" Concrete Pavement 9,620 sy $ 46.00 $ 442,520 316 4" Topsoil 3,380 sy $ 2.50 $ 8,450 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 23,400 1 0 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 I $ 52.00 $ 105,300 601 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 721,110 •. Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 21,633 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 252,389 �I Illumination 6% $ 43,267 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 21,633 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 14,422 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 14,422 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 28,844 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 396,611 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,117,721 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 167,658 Mobilization 5% $ 55,886 Prep ROW 3% $ 33,532 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,375,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,375,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 275,000 Previous City contribution Other Roadway Adjacent to George Dawson $ 124,675 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 702,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,476,675 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: Village Center Dr. (2) Limits: S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr Impact Fee Class: C2U(60) Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Collector Length (If): 1,735 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane collector. Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,020,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 7,711 cy $ 10.00 $ 77,111 sy 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 7,518 $ 6.00 $ 45,110 301 8" Concrete Pavement 7,133 sy $ 46.00 $ 328,108 316 4" Topsoil 2,506 sy $ 2.50 $ 6,265 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 17,350 1 0 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 I $ 52.00 $ 78,075 601 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings 1 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 534,669 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 16,040 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 187,134 �I Illumination 6% $ 32,080 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 16,040 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 10,693 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 10,693 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 21,387 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 294,068 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 828,737 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 124,311 Mobilization 5% $ 41,437 Prep ROW 3% $ 24,862 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,020,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,020,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 204,000 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: JAssumed $5 per square foot $ 460,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,684,500 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection .- Name: Brumlow Ave. Limits: East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits Impact Fee Class: A4D(94) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 4,035 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane divided arterial. Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,297,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 109 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 17,933 cy $ 10.00 $ 179,333 24,210 sy 209 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) $ 6.00 $ 145,260 309 8" Concrete Pavement 23,313 sy $ 46.00 $ 1,072,413 324 4" Topsoil 15,692 sy $ 2.50 $ 39,229 509 5' Concrete Sidewalk ITurn Lanes and Median Openings 40,350 2,140 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ $ 181,575 111,268 609 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,729,079 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 51,872 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 605,178 �I Illumination 6% $ 103,745 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 51,872 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 34,582 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 34,582 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 69,163 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 950,993 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,680,072 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 402,011 Mobilization 5% $ 134,004 Prep ROW 3% $ 80,402 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 3,297,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,297,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 659,400 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: JAssumed $5 per square foot $ 948,225 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,904,625 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Name: W Highland St. Limits: White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 Impact Fee Class: A3U(70) Ultimate Class: 3 -Lane Arterial Length (If): 3,165 Service Area(s): S Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/9/2017 This project consists of the reconstruction of an existing two-lane asphalt facility into a three -lane arterial. Roadway Construction.Projection Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,916,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 14,067 cy $ 10.00 $ 140,667 203 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 13,715 sy $ 6.00 $ 82,290 303 8" Concrete Pavement 13,012 sy $ 46.00 $ 598,537 318 4" Topsoil 8,088 sy $ 2.50 $ 20,221 503 5' Concrete Sidewalk 31,650 400 sf 1 sy $ 4.50 1 $ 52.00 $ 1 $ 142,425 20,780 603 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,004,919 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 30,148 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 351,722 �I Illumination 6% $ 60,295 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 30,148 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 20,098 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,098 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 40,197 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal: $ 552,706 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,557,625 Construction Contingency: 15% $ 233,644 Mobilization 5% $ 77,881 Prep ROW 3% $ 46,729 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,916,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,916,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 383,200 Previous City contribution Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: JAssumed $5 per square foot $ 316,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,615,700 NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a specific project. 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 9 B. APPENDIX B - CIP SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update CIP Service Units of Supply Service Area North 11/9/2017 Project ID # ROADWAY LIMITS LENGTH (MI) LANES IMPACT FEE CLASSIFICATION PEAK HOUR VOLUME VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI TOTAL DEMAND PK -HR EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI TOTAL PROJECT COST N-1 Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 552 725 1153 220 933 $ 1,300,000 N-2 Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. 0.43 4 A4D(100) 0 725 1261 0 1261 $ 3,504,300 N-3 N White Chapel Blvd. (1) E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd. 0.34 4 A4D(88) 447 725 989 152 837 $ 11850,000 N-4 N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR 0.23 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 447 725 662 102 560 $ 1,050,000 N-5 E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. 0.42 4 A4D(100) 0 725 1230 0 1,230 $ 5,699,000 N-6 E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. 0.16 4 A4U(88) 545 650 414 87 327 $ 822,000 N-7 E Kirkwood Blvd. (5) N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. 0.16 4 A4D(88) 545 725 461 87 374 $ 1,159,000 N-8 E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way 0.33 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 370 725 950 121 829 $ 2,625,000 N-9 E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. 0.29 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 281 725 846 82 764 $ 861,600 N-10 N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 1.18 4 A4D(88) 1,249 725 3419 1,473 1,946 $ 10,383,832 N-11 SH 114 WBFR Kirkwood Blvd. to E. Dove Rd. 0.97 2 Frontage Road 0 900 1739 0 1,739 $ 9,000,000 1-1 N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. $ 300,000 I-2 N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) $ 1,500,000 I-3 N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. $ 200,000 1-9 I-10Kirkwood E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 Blvd. & SH 114 1 1 1 1 1 $ $ 150,000 600,000 SUBTOTAL 13,124 2,324 10,800 $ 41,004,732 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Cost Per Service Area $ 15,167 TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA N $41,019,899 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix B - Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Suppy City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update CIP Service Units of Supply Service Area South Project ID # ROADWAY LIMITS LENGTH (MI) LANES IMPACT FEE CLASSIFICATION PEAK HOUR VOLUME VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI TOTAL DEMAND PK -HR EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI TOTAL PROJECT COST S-1 FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy. 1.56 4 A4D(130-140) 1,244 725 4523 1,940 2,583 $ 3,465,000 S-2 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 to Highland St. 0.33 4 A4D(88) 1,160 725 958 383 575 $ 5,452,128 S-3 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. to Emerald Blvd. 0.81 4 A4D(88) 1,245 725 2362 1014 1348 $ 5,537,858 S-4 N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd. 1.00 2 A3U(70) 514 650 1305 516 789 $ 4,778,300 S-5 Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrel Ave. 0.35 2 C2U(60) 0 525 368 0 368 $ 662,118 S-6 Zena Rucker Rd. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr. 0.19 2 C2U(60) 0 525 203 0 203 $ 1,026,000 S-7 S Carroll Ave. (1) Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr. 0.14 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 1,434 725 395 196 199 $ 200,000 S-8 S Carroll Ave. (2) 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way 0.09 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 1,434 725 275 136 139 $ 331,960 S-9 Village Center Dr. (1) 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway 0.44 2 C2U(60) 0 525 465 0 465 $ 2,476,675 S-10 Village Center Dr. (2) S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. 0.33 2 C2U(60) 0 525 345 0 1 345 $ 1,684,500 S-11 Brumlow, Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits 0.76 4 A4D(94) 1,456 725 2216 1,113 1,103 $ 4,904,625 S-12 W Highland St. White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 0.60 2 A3U(70) 235 650 779 141 638 $ 2,615,700 1-4 Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 11500,000 1-5 1-6 Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Pkwy. N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. $ $ 2,500,000 1,500,000 1-7 Dove Rd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 2,410,000 1-8 E. Dove Rd. & SH 114 $ 150,000 1-11 1-12 W. Southlake Blvd. & N. Pearson Ln. W. Southlake Blvd. & N. White Chapel Blvd. $ $ 120,000 458,000 1-13 E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Carroll Ave. $ 2,100,000 1-14 E. Southlake Blvd. & N. Kimball Ave. $ 323,000 1-15 E. Dove Rd. & Shady Oaks Dr. $ 1,500,000 1-16 I -17W. Shady Oaks Dr. & W. Highland St. Continental Blvd. & Davis Blvd. I I $ $ 140,000 760,000 SUBTOTAL 14,194 5,439 8,755 $ 46,595,864 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Cost Per Service Area $ 15,167 TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA S $ 46,611,031 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix 8 - Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Suppy Kimley>»Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 0 C. APPENDIX C - EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY SERVICE 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update November 2017 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service Area N ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH LENGTH (ft) (mi) EXIST LANES NB/EB SB/WB EXIST CLASS LANES PM PEAK HOUR VOL NB/EB SB/WB %IN SERVICE AREA VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN NB/EB SB/WB VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL NB/EB SB/WB VEH-MI DEMAND PK -HR TOTAL NB/EB SB/WB EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEX -MI NB/EB SO/WB EXISTING DEFICIENCIES PK -HR VEH-MI NB/EB SO/WB Dove Rd. SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd 1183 0.22 2 2 4D -C Arterial (88) 255 290 100% 725 725 325 325 57 65 268 260 E Highland St. SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd. 515 0.10 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 50 60 100% 525 525 51 51 5 6 46 45 E Highland St. Kirkwood Blvd. N Kimbal Ave. 4339 0.82 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 4 41 100% 525 525 431 431 3 34 428 398 E Kirkwood Blvd. N White Chapel Blvd Southmont or 4559 0.86 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 22 14 100% 725 725 1,252 1,252 19 12 1,233 1,240 E Kirkwood Blvd. Southmont Dr Highland St. 2239 0.42 0 0 Unbuilt Arterial (300') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E Kirkwood Blvd. Highland St. E Highland St. 1460 0.28 1 1 2U -A Arterial (88') 255 290 100% 525 525 145 145 71 so 75 65 E Kirkwood Blvd. E Highland St. 250 Feet East of Grace Ln. 829 0.16 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 171 199 100% 725 725 228 228 27 31 201 196 E Kirkwood Blvd. 250 Feet East of Grace Ln. 800 Feet West of Blessed Way 1122 0.21 1 1 4D -C Arterial (100') 147 109 10031. 725 725 154 154 31 23 123 131 E Kirkwood Blvd. 800 Feet West of Blessed Way 800 Feet East of Blessed Way 1768 0.33 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 147 109 100% 725 725 486 486 49 36 436 449 E Kirkwood Blvd. 800 Feet East of Blessed Way N Kimball Ave. 1543 0.29 1 1 2U -C Arterial (100') 183 98 100% 525 525 153 153 53 29 100 125 East Bob Jones Rd North White Chapel Blvd. Homestead Ct. 2336 0.44 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 15 33 100% 525 525 232 232 7 15 226 218 East Dove Rd. Kirkwood Blvd. Eastern City Limits 13032 2.47 1 1 2U -A Arterial (88') 260 241 100% 525 525 1,296 1,296 642 595 654 701 Grace Ln. SH 114 600 Feet North of SH 114 616 0.12 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') N/A N/A 100% 725 725 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grace Ln. 600 Feet North of SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd. 10081 0.19 01 01 Unbuilt Arterial (100') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 T. W. King Rd. 1062 0.20 3 3 GD -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% g00 800 483 483 46 65 436 418 Kirkwood Blvd. T. W. King Rd. Tyler St. 4436 am 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% 725 725 1,218 1,218 193 271 1,025 948 Kirkwood Blvd. Tyler St. Stockton Dr. 2102 0.40 1 1 2U -C Arterial (100) 230 322 100% 525 525 209 209 92 128 117 81 Kirkwood Blvd. Stockton Dr. E Dove Rd. 441 0.08 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% 725 725 121 121 19 27 102 94 Kirkwood Blvd. E Dove Rd. N White Chapel Blvd. 2295 0.43 0 0 Unbuilt Arterial (100') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Carroll Ave. Burney Ln SH 114 9991 1.89 1 1 2U -A Arterial (100') 345 395 100% 525 525 993 993 653 747 341 246 N Kimball Ave. N Kimball Ave. N White Chapel Blvd Dove Kirkwood Blvd. Northern City Limits Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 300 Feet North of Sam Bass Ridge Rd 6440 2571 405 1.22 0.49 0.08 1 2 1 1 4D -C Arterial (88') 2 4D -C Arterial (88') 1 2U -C Collector (70') 628 701 N/A 384 548 N/A 100% 100% 100% 725 725 525 725 725 525 884 706 N/A 884 706 N/A 766 341 N/A 468 267 N/A 118 365 N/A 416 439 N/A N White Chapel Blvd 300 Feet North of Sam Bass Ridge Rd 320 Feet North of King Ranch Rd 31721 0.60 11 11 2U -A Collector (70') 23 18 100% 525 525 315 315 14 11 302 305 N White Chapel Blvd N White Chapel Blvd N White Chapel Blvd 320 Feet North of King Ranch Rd Clariden Ranch Rd Dove Clariden Ranch Rd Dove SH 114 1534 7879 3428 0.29 1.49 0.65 2 1 1 2 3U -A Collectorp0') 1 2U -A Collector (70') 1 2U -A Arterial (88') 267 267 267 180 180 180 100% 100% 100% 650 525 525 650 525 525 283 783 341 283 783 341 78 398 173 52 269 117 206 385 168 231 515 224 T.W. King Rd. Northern City Limits 1200 Feet North of Westpark Cir. 913 0.17 1 1 2U -C Collector (60') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A T.W. King Rd. T.W. King Rd. T.W. King Rd. E 1200 Feet North of West Park Cir. Bob Jones Rd. Plaza Dr. Bob Jones Rd. Plaza Dr. Kirkwood Blvd, 4121 4001 1715 0.78 0.76 0.32 1 1 2 1 2U -A Collector (70') 1 2U -A Collector (70') 2 4U -C Collector(70') N/A 47 47 N/A 39 39 100% 100% 100% 525 525 650 525 525 650 N/A 398 422 N/A 398 422 N/A 36 15 N/A 30 13. N/A 362 407 N/A 368 410 W Bob Jones Rd T.W. King Road North White Chapel Blvd. 3216 0.61 1 1 2U -A Collector (60') 15 15 300% 525 525 320 320 9 9 311 311 SUBTOTAL1 96,271 18.23 1 12,231 121231 31798 3,399 8,434 8,832 0 0 24,462 7,196 17,266 0 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix C - Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory City of Southlake - 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service Area S uwm ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH (R) LENGTH (ml) EXIST IANEs NB/EB SB/WB EXIST LANES CLASS FUTURE LANES PM PEAK HOUR VOL NB/EB SB/VJB %IN SERVICE AREA VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI DEMAND PK -HR TOTAL EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI EXISTING DEFICIENCIES PK -HR VEH-MI Fill SB/WB NB/EB SB/.B NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB 3ruinlow Ave Byron Nelson Pkwy. Byron Nelson Pkwy. Byron Nelson Pkwy. Davis Blvd. Dove Rd. Dove Rd. East Continental Blvd. East Southlake Blvd. Bryson Wy. Inwood Dr. West Southlake Blvd. Western City Limits N Shady Oaks Dr. 250' North of Southern City Limits. Bryson Wy. Inwood Dr. East Continental Blvd. Southern City Limits N Shady Oaks Dr. SH 114 4036 _ 2059 1273 2436 4871 2849 510 0.76 0.39 0.24 0.46 0.92 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2U -A 4D -C 4U -C 4D -C 7U -C Arterial (94') Arterial(88') Arterial (88') Arterial (88') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (88') _ Arterial (88') 4D -A 4D -A 4D -A 4D -A 6D -A 2U -A 2U -A 626 223 223 223 1089 780 917 830 380 380 380 1460 325 486 100% 100% 111% 100% l00% 100% 10D% 525 725 650 525 725 650 725 750 401 565 313 669 2,076 401 565 313 669 2,076 479 87 54 103 11005 634 148 92 175 1,347 -77 478 260 566 1,071 -138 51 -233 417 222 494 729 108 93 77 233 138 725 750 0.54 1 1 2U -A 0.10 2 2 4D -C 525 725 525 725 283 283 140 140 421 175 89 47 E Continental Blvd. E Continental Blvd. White Chapel Blvd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. Byron Nelson Pkwy. South Carroll Ave. 4214 4258 0.80 0.81 1 1 1 1 2U -A 2U -A Collector (84') Colledor (84') 2U -C 2U -C 437 388 777 632 10D% 100% 525 525 525 525 419 423 419 423 349 _ 313 620 510 70 110 -201 -86 201 86 E Continental Blvd. South Carroll Ave. Crooked Ln. 3317 0.63 1 1 2U -A Collector (84') 2U -C 342 276 1702 1861 1556 1615 1289 1289 73 315 233 879 335 328 267 173 173 293 508 496 496 496 488 735 714 714 714 826 585 335 262 197 396 336 336 76 248 135 135 N/A 193 N/A N/A N/A 143 N/A 651 10066 525 525 330 330 215 409 115 -79 79 E Continental Blvd. Crooked Ln. South Kimbal Ave. 1139 0.22 2 2 4U -C C.HsOor(84') 2U -C 540 100% 650 650 280 280 s0 116 221 164 E Southlake. Blvd. White Chapel Blvd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. 2497 E Southlake Blvd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. S Carroll Ave. 2845 0.47 _ 3 3 7U -C 0.54 3 3 7U -C Arterial (130'-140') _ 6D -A Arterial (130'-140') 6D -A 2580 2665 100% _ 100% 75D 750 ]50 750 1,064 _ 1,064 1,212 1,212 805 _ _ 1,220 1,003 1,436 259 -156 210 -224 156 124 E Southlake Blvd. 5 Carroll Ave. 5 Kimball Ave. 5342 E_Soud lake Blvd. 5 Kimball Ave. Nolen Dr. 1807 E Southlake Blvd. _ Nolen Dr. Commerce St. 1822 E Southlake Blvd. Commerce St.. SH 114 1163 Florence Rd. N Pearson In. Randal Mill Ave. 5312 -__ FM 1938 Northern City Limits Randol Mill Rd. 2207 1.01 3 3 7U -C 0.34 3 3 7U -C Arterial (130'-140') 6D -A _Arterial (130'-140')_ 6D -A Arterial (130'-140') 6D -A Arterial (130'-140') 6D -A Collector (60') 2U Arterial (130'-140') 60-A Collect.r(70') 2U -C Arterial (100') 4D -A Arterial (84') _ 5U -A Arterial (84') SU -A Arterial(10') 3U -A Colledor (70') 2U -C Collector (60') _ 2U C Arterial(88') aD-A Arterial (94') 4D -A Arterial (94') 4D -A _Arterial (94') 4D -A Arterial (94') 4D -A Anc,ial(130'-140') 6D -A Arterial (88') 4D-1 Arterial (88') _ 4D -A Arterial (88') 4D -A _. Arterial (88') 4D -A Arterial (124') ED -A 2099 1812 100% 750 750 750 2,276 2,276 770 770 1,574 _ 2,124 553 620_ 702 153 217 250 _ _ 0.35 3 3 7U -C 0.22 3 3 7U -C 1.01 1 1 2U -A 0.42 2 2 4D -C 1.01 1 1 2U -A_ 0.74 -2 46-4 0.06 1 1 3U -C 0.20 2 2 SU -C 1434 1434 146 863 233 1180 _10D%_ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 750 750 525 725725 525 _750_ 750 750 525 525 776 776 496 496 528 528 Safi 606 530 530 445 _ 495 284 III 73 147 132 361 235 235 332 282 212 180 455 381 474 245 295 295 _ Johnson Rd. N Pea rson In. Randonl Mill Ave. 5327 N Carroll Ave. SH 114 East SouthlakeBlvd 3895 725 725 1,00 1,070 648 870 421 199 N Nolen Or. SH 114 300 Feet South of SH 114 291 318 100% 650 650 36 36 18 1B 17 18 N Nolen Or. 300 Feet South of SH 114 East Southlake Blvd. 1034 437 _ 100% 725 725 284 284 64 86 220 198. N Pea rson In. Florence Rd. West Southlake Bivd, 5302 N Peytonville Ave, W Dove Rd. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. 6449 1.00 1 1 2U -A 1.22 1 1 2U -A 483 376 376 387 652 749 749 749 756 845 720 720 720 992 100% 100% 525 525 525 525 527 527 641 641 268 485 211 459 259 42 430 182 N Peytonville Ave. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Corporate Cir 5337 1.01 1 1 2U -A 10006 525 525531 531 175 380 356 151 N Psyton_viile Ave.. Corporate Cir West Southlake Blvd. 472 0.09 2 2 5U -A 100% 725 725 130 130 26 35 103 95 N White Chapel Blvd SH 114 Ascot Dr. 3111 N While Chapel Blvd Asmt Dr. W Chapel Downs Dr: 1149 0.59 1 1 2U -A -. 0.22 1 1 3U -A 100% 100% 525 650 525 650 309 309 141 141 299 384 108 163 10 -75 34 -12 75 22 N White Chapel Blvd W Chapel Downs Dr. Emerald Blvd. 1777 N White Chapel Blvd Emerald Blvd. East Southlake Blvd. 1058 Randol Mill Ave FM 1938 West 5outhlake Blvd. 8234 SC .... 11 Ave. East Southlake Blvd. Zen. Rucker Rd. 94_8 5 Carroll Ave. Zena Rucker Rd, Westmont Dr. 2_6_4_3 SC .... 11 Ave. Westmont Dr. Old Carroll Rd. 932 _ S Carroll Ave. Old Carroll Rd. E Continental Blvd, 1999 3 S Kimball Ave. SH 114 East Southlake Blvd, 1004 0.34 1 1 2U -A 100% 525 525 177 177 167 252 10 -75 75 0.20 2 2 5U -A 1(1 725 725 291 291 99 150 761 1,179 132 152 357 360 126 127 270 272 157 189 191 140 1.56 11 2U -A _0.18 2 2 4D -A 0.50 1 1 3U -A 0.18 1 1 2U -A 0.38 2 2 4D -C 0.19_ 3 3 6D -C 100% 100% 111% 100% 100% 1004 525 725 650650 525 725 800 525 725 525 725 800 819 819 260 26D 325 325 93 93 547 547 456 456 58 -360 128 109 360 -32 -35 42 35 -33 -34 33 34 278 276 299 268 S Kimball Ave. East Southlake Blvd. Southern City Limits 7531 1.43 _ _2 _ 2 _ 4D -C 0.22 22 _ _ 4U -C _ 0.50 1 _ 1 2U -A 0.16 2 2 4D -A Arial (88') _ 4D -A Arterial (70') 30-A Collector (70') 2U -C 449 100% 725 725 2,068 2,068 834 640 1,234 1,428 5 Nolen Or. East Southlake Blvd. Crooked Ln. 1145 318 IUD% 650 650 282 282 73 69 209 213 S Pearson Ln. West Southlake Blvd. Union Church Rd. 2641 252 269 293 100% 525 525 263 263 131 126 132 137 S Peytonville Ave. West Southlake Blvd. 850 Feet South of West Southlake Blvd. 843 Arbsnal(88') 4D -A 1(1 725 725 232 232 31 43 200 189 5 Peytonville Ave. 850 Feet South of West Southlanke Blvd. West Continental Blvd. 4460 _ _ 0.84 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 2U -C 1000's 525 525 443 443 335 247 109 196 S White Chapel Blvd East Southlake Blvd, Londonberry Terrace 1009 _ 0.19 2 1 4D -A Arterial (88') 2U -A 604 604 100% 725 725 277 277 64 115 213 162 S White Chapel Blvd Londonberry Terrace Southern City Limits _ 7385 Sam School Rd. Northern City Limits W Dove Rd. 1769 1.40 1 1 2U -A Arterial(88') Collector (70') Collector (60') Arterial (88') Arterial (88') Collector (60') Collector (84') Collector (60') Collect.r(60') Collector (60') Collector (60') _ Collector (60') Collector (84') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') 2U -A 2U -A 2U -C 4D -A 40-A 2U -C 2UC 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 60-A 63-A 60-A 100% 525 525 734 734 470 845 264 -110 110 0.34 1 1 2U -A 2.02 1 1 2U -A 0.48 1 1 2U -C 0.37 2 2 4D -C 0.17 1 1 2U -G 1.01 1 1 2U -A 0.13 1 1 2U -C D,ut 0 0 Unbuilt 0.33 0 0 Unbuilt 1.10 1 1 2U -A 0.54 1 1 2U -C 92 100% 525 525 176 176 25 31 150 145 Shady Oaks Dr. E Dove Rd. East Southlake Pkwy. _ 10678 Southridge Lakes Pkwy. N Peytonville Ave. Brazos Dr. 2553 Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Brazos Dr. _ East Southlake Pkwy. _ 1963 Tower Dr. East Southlake Blvd. Zen. Rucker Rd. 895 -. Union_Ch_urc_h S Pearson Ln. Davis Blvd. _ 5307 Village Center Dr. East Southlake Pkwy 700' South of Southlake Pkwy 698 Village Center Dr. 700'South of Southlake Pkwy SKimball Ave. 2339 Village Center Dr. SKimball Ave. S Nolen Dr. 1]35 W Highland St. Shady Oaks Dr. SH 114 5825 Waterere Dr. West Southlake Pkwy Union Church 2857 m 251 118 118 N/A 299 N/A N/A N/A 92 N/A 100911 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1Do% 100% 100% 10D% S25 725 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 525 725 ..N/A 525 525 525 525 525 525 1,062 1,062_ 502 508 560 554 ZS4 254 539 539 N/A 528 528 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 579 579 N/A N/A 65 57 50 44 189 197 489 _ 495 N/A N/A 334 227 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 194 _301 N/q N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 158 _ 5111 N/A N/A N/A N/A 421 478 N/A N/A W Continental Blvd. Davis Blvd White Chapel Blvd. 9247 1.75 1 1 26-A 723 1092 1500 1706 399 100% 525 525 919 919 1,266 699 -347 221 347 W Southlake Blvd. Western City Limits Davis Blvd. 5642 1.07 3 3 7U -C 2106 100% 750 750 2,404 2,404 1,167 2,250 1,237 154 W Southlake Blvd. Davis Blvd. S Peytonville Ave. 3094 W 5outhlake Blvd. 5 Peytonville Ave. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. 1741 0.59 3 3 7U -C 0.33 3 3 7U -C 2571 2645 100% 100% 750 750 750 750 1,318 1,318 742 742 879 1,507 563 872 439 -188 179 -130 188 130 W Southlake Blvd. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. N Shady Oaks Dr. 3703 0.70 3 3 7U -C Arterial (130'-140') 6D -A 1752 2719 100% 75D 750 1,578 1,578 1,229 1,907 349 -329 329 W Southlake Blvd. N Shady Oaks Dr. N White Chapel Blvd. 2544 0.48 3 3 7U -C Arterial (130'-140') _ 6D -A 1843 2830 100% 750 750 1,084 1,084 888 1,364 196 -279 279 Zena Rucker Rd. Z na Rucke! Rd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. 935' East of Byron Ne)son Pkwy. 935 Feet East of Byron Nelson Pkwy.. 5 Carroll Ave. 935 1974 0.18 0.3] 1 D 1 0 2U -C Unbuilt Collector (60') Collector (60') 2U -C 2U -C 723 N/A 399 N/A 100% 100% _ 525 525 525 525 93 N/A 93 N/A 128 N/A 71 N/A -35 N/A 22 N/A 35 SUBTOTAL 195,426 37.01 36,3]2 36,3]2 21,216 28,584 15,156 7,788 662 2,616 ]2,]44 49,800 1 22,945 3,278 2017 Roadway Impact Fee Minor Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix C - Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory